We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

"/Qresearch/ does not condone violence or the incitement of violent acts against any groups and/or individuals."

The case agent told us that he scheduled a meeting on October 19 with the two SDNY AUSAs assigned to the Weiner investigation because he felt like he had nowhere else to turn. He described AUSA 1, the lead prosecutor, as a friend. He added, “I felt like if I went there and [AUSA 1] got the attention of Preet Bharara, maybe they’d kick some of these lazy FBI folks in the butt and get them moving.” The case agent stated that he told the AUSAs in detail about the emails he had seen between Clinton and Abedin. He continued:

And I told her, I’m a little scared here. I don’t know what to do because I’m not political. Like I don’t care who wins this election, but this is going to make us look really, really horrible. And it could ruin this case, too. And…I said the thing that also bothers me is that Comey’s testimony is inaccurate. And as a big admirer of the guy, and I think he’s a straight shooter, I wanted to, I felt like he needed to know, like, we got this. And I didn’t know if he did. The AUSAs both told us that the case agent appeared to be very stressed and worried that somehow he would be blamed in the end if no action was taken. AUSA 1 stated that the case agent worried that the information relating to the Clinton emails had not been provided to the right people and AUSA 2 observed that the case agent “was getting, for lack of a better word, paranoid that, like, somebody was not acting appropriately, somebody was trying to bury this.”

Saudi Princess Amira Bint Aidan Bin Nayef went on a rampage against the ruling Saudi regime in her exclusive statements to the French newspaper Le Monde, saying slavery in Saudi Arabia has different forms, but it is done in secrecy and permitted only among the primary beneficiaries of the princes of the House of Saud.

She mentioned one of the most repulsive things: buying and renting the children, especially the orphans, from countries like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Djibouti, Somalia, Nigeria, Romania and Bulgaria.

China Says Willing to Team with Syria’s Assad in Push to Retake Territory

Diplomat relays message that Chinese military ready to help ‘in some way’ as campaign moves north

China’s ambassador to Damascus has reportedly told Syrian media that Beijing is prepared to aid the government’s push to retake territory throughout the country.

Speaking to Syrian pro-government daily Al-Watan, the envoy, Qi Qianjin, expressed China’s support for what he referred to as Syria’s war against terrorists, according to a dispatch from the Middle East Media Research Institute.

Qi said he regretted that Chinese Uyghurs had participated in fighting against the government of President Bashar al-Assad, adding that the Chinese military was hoping to enhance relations with the Syrian military.

“Asked about the possibility that his country would take part in the Syrian Arab Army’s upcoming campaign against the terrorists in Idlib, especially in light of the presence of Uyghur fighters [there], [Qi] replied that China ‘is following the situation in Syria, in particular after the victory in southern [Syria], and its military is willing to participate in some way alongside the Syrian army that is fighting the terrorists in Idlib and in any other part of Syria,” the article from Al-Watan was translated as saying.

When asked about Chinese participation in the campaign, military attaché Wong Roy Chang said

“‘the military cooperation between the Syrian and Chinese armies is ongoing. We have good relations and we maintain this cooperation in order to serve the security, integrity and stability of our countries. We – China and its military – wish to develop our relations with the Syrian Army. As for participating in the Idlib operation, it requires a political decision.’ He denied that there were military advisers or special Chinese forces in Syria today.”

To see what the opposition is up to, I just Googled "qanon conspiracy theory" under the "news" tab.

There was an ABC article and an NY Times article. Both similar in tone to the links in your graphic. More interesting were the reader's comments. Virtually all of the comments were about the stupidity or gullibility of Q followers.

So, a normie reads the ABC article which discusses only the most general of Q topics "Mueller is investigating Clinton" and "Trump taking down pedophiles in Hollywood." From that, with no factual basis other than the slanted article, the vast majority of commenters conclude that we are whacko, gullible, and dangerous.

If you are new here understand this is not a chat room, lurk for a few weeks before posting, watch how the board operates, use discernment to evaluate who is friend or foe and learn how shills operate!

When anyone counters a post demand proof aka sauce for their argument!

So after Q saying something BIG is about to drop. And everything today …it seems apparent to me Q means Amazon/Bezos/Wapo.I’m not a StockFag, but does anyone have the ability to see Amazons stock and if any sell offs have taken place lately? Or the Washington Post stock?

We need new names for the two rags left. Post and Times. We should refer them to their operators Bezos Post, Soros Times.

I’m going to do what little DuckDuckGo can direct me to for these stocks.

All of this seems, at least at this point. For me to believe Q may mean Bezos/Post had an attempt setup at the rally last night.

Knowing that POTUS gives clues or confirmations in his speeches I went back to listen to part of it and several topics caught my attention because he said them more than one time or dwelled on them for a bit.

THEY ARE:

- SUPPRESSION

- TEXAS

- UTAH

- 2% 98%

- THEY WOULDN’T CALL PENNSYLVANIA

- ‘DISGUSTING’ FAKE NEWS

He spent some time on Texas, even coming back to it, after a disruption. I decided to search BEZOS after Trump dropped the Washington Post links today and discovered that BEZOS recently visited DALLAS and was hosted by BUSH CENTER . Would definitely be one means for them to communicate?

Also I remembered that there were TWO RESIGNATIONS of GOP IN PENNSYLVANIA: Charlie Dent and Patrick Meehan

So I am just going to theorize that POTUS was telling us the Bezos and the Bushes are working together now to take him down. There are also some BIG TIME dirty establishment politicians in Pennsylvania.

He has mentioned SUPPRESSION before, but this time with the known SECURITY THREAT , I think the SUPPRESSION this time meant that they had something planned at this rally that the SS averted.

And of course, his mentioning UTAH was him telling them that NSA IN UTAH knows all of this.

You must be new here…I am going to say this as nicely as I can….everything has to happen in an organic way…with the division in the world right now All facts must come from the [left] (((they))) listen to each other. THERE IS A PLAN…AND WE ARE WINNING…..You are a visitor here….leave if you can't understand that

Mezvinsky was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and grew up attending a Conservative Jewish synagogue.[2] His parents are both former Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives. His father is Edward Mezvinsky (b. 1937), who embezzled more than $10 million from people via both a Ponzi scheme and the advance-fee scams, and was found guilty of fraud in 2001.[3][4][5] His mother is Marjorie Margolies (b. 1942), who was a TV reporter and represented Pennsylvania's 13th District from 1993 to 1995. They declared bankruptcy shortly before Mezvinsky's conviction, and divorced.[6]

Democrats and Republicans each like to accuse the other of being the real nazis or the real fascists. It's a very stupid and cowardly game that they play, trying to avoid a label or an association. It has everything to do with appearances and nothing to do with substance.

What Republicans Say

The whole question is confused by the fact that, in vulgar American usage, the meanings of conservative and right-wing have changed. Nowadays, to be conservative is to be an advocate of what used to be called liberalism. In most of the world, what is called conservatism in the USA – the demand for free markets and less government – is still called liberalism.*

According to this postwar pseudo-conservatism, any big, powerful government is ipso facto a leftist government.

A generally neglected implication of this redefinition of conservatism is that the powerful absolute monarchies that existed before the Enlightenment must be considered leftist governments. That is utterly absurd. This redefinition clearly was not well considered.

For Republican rhetoric, an important effect of the redefinition of conservatism is that it is now considered impossible to be right-wing and socialist at the same time. On that basis, Republicans can say that National-Socialism and Fascism are leftist and in no way conservative.

Before World War II, that was not the case.

Most Americans have never heard of Tory Socialism. Tory means Conservative. Tory Socialism means Conservative Socialism. Conservative socialism as an idea started in the UK, where it was originally associated with the Young England movement in the 1840s.

How can socialism be conservative? Conservative socialism means making concessions to the needs of the laboring class in order to recruit that class as defenders of established traditions and institutions.

The idea was implemented in Germany by Otto von Bismarck, who, after essentially banning the Socialist Workers' Party in 1878, created the German welfare-state in 1881. The purpose was to eliminate grievances that the Marxists could use to gain popular support. Bismarck did all this with support from Conservatives.

Both Mussolini and Hitler followed in Bismarck's path, doing what Bismarck had done but more of it. National-Socialism and Fascism can be regarded as left-right syntheses in regard to methods, but the ultimate aim is conservative.

It is only by relying on a very limited frame of reference that today's so-called conservatives can argue that National-Socialism and Fascism are in no way right-wing or conservative.

The Democrats, eager to throw the hot potato back to the Republicans, argue that National-Socialism and Fascism are not socialism. It's a purely semantic argument. They can't deny that Hitler and Mussolini created large-scale social programs. So, they point out that Hitler and Mussolini did not implement "government ownership of the means of production" the way Stalin did. But that is not a universally shared definition of socialism. That's just the definition that they want to use just for this particular argument. There are many socialist and social-democratic parties that do not insist on government-takeover of enterprises, whose claim to being socialists is for some reason not challenged.

One could argue that the reason why social-democrats in various countries do not nationalize industries is that they are kept in check by opposition. But this was also true for the Fascists in Italy and the National-Socialists in Germany. Yes, Hitler and Mussolini were autocrats, but it does not mean that they could disregard what everybody else thought.

When Mussolini established Fascism in Italy, it was with the consent of King Victor Emmanuel and the rest of the conservative Italian establishment. Under the circumstances, that establishment continued to wield influence and Mussolini could not implement everything in the Fascist agenda. But in the Salò Republic (1943-1945) the Italian Fascists actually did implement nationalization of every enterprise with more than 100 employees. That is rather socialist by anybody's definition.

The NSDAP in Germany also had to compromise with the conservative establishment, which is why figures on the left wing of the NSDAP became disgruntled and began talking about the need for a second revolution, and consequently had to be suppressed with the "Night of the Long Knives" in 1934.

Conservatism of Means vs. Conservatism of Ends

After the Second World War, the idea of using government for conservative purposes (as, for example, with anti-miscegenation laws, or restrictions on abortion and pornography) came under attack.

Liberalism thus became the new conservatism. It meant that certain ways of doing things – the liberal ways – had to be maintained. Under this pseudo-conservatism, the Constitution and the free market are not means to an end, but ends in themselves (much like some religious law). Those principles are treated as holy, regardless of whether the country is going to ruin because of them.

Another way to say it is, presentday American conservatism is a conservatism of means. As long as we keep doing certain things the same old way, the so-called conservatives can claim victory. All the leaders of the Soviet Union between Kruschev and Gorbachev could claim to be conservative in that very same sense, of refusing to adapt. This "conservatism" is in fact rigidity.

Fascism and National-Socialism by contrast represent conservatism of ends. Fascism and National-Socialism looked at their most cherished values, and chose means that they thought would conserve those values.

For Italian Fascism, the most cherished values were cultural, while for the NSDAP the most cherished value was the racial quality of the German people. More fundamentally stated, Italians were concerned with continuing to be Italians, and Germans were concerned with continuing to be Germans. The two nations chose means that were in some ways the same, in some ways different, for essentially the same purpose.

So, notwithstanding all the disingenuous blather from presentday American political parties, the bottom line is that National-Socialism and Fascism were simultaneously socialist and, in regard to the survival of their nations, conservative.

_____

* The redefinition of conservatism had not fully taken hold in 1951. Anti-Communist commentator Upton Close was still defending the traditional definition of liberalism: "Liberalism is the system which gives the opportunity for people to earn their own way, and make their own successes or failures, to earn what they get, and get what they earn, and keep what they get. so long as it is not taking from others their opportunity to get and keep. Liberalism is the system whereby people have as little government, as few laws and officials over them as possible, taking as little of their savings and earnings as possible in taxes." (Upton Close, broadcast of 1 April 1951)

Today this liberalism would be recognized as the ideology of Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh.

I am very impressed that Daddy Dragon is reading latest Q drops in the middle of his planned remarks on Patrots Soabox this afternoon. PamphletAnon, if you're one here please hear this:

Last night you had a guy named "GoodDog" on there with your nice wife. Well, soon after the Wilkes-Barre, PA rally ended, Q started dropping explanations about why there were no Q signs at the rally.

Well, GoodDog refused to cover the Q drops, even though RadixVerum wanted him to. No, no. GoodDog was too committed to reading all the boring shit he brought to the table, rather than covering the Q drops LIVE.

So you gotta problem on your hands, if you're gonna let GoodDog usurp Q. I understand things are a work in progress, but I know people have tried to address this and they get banned. So here it s, in public? REIGN IN GOODDOG. He is not more important than Q.

Been here since Oct… no part of ANY Q theory implies that ANY member of the trump family save Barron has time to be on here dicking around with ADD kids…. the whole POINT is that they are saving the world and we are WATCHING…

Just because you stopped don't think God quit loving you. Stronger is He inside of you than he in the world. Put on your armor, have faith, we all have been fooled long enough. Wake up I know the Bible & God wins.

He will play his role when he is ready. There are many that are ready to play when the time is right….i don't understand your disdain! There is a plan…WE ALL TRUST THAT….The stuff happening is not normal…..OPEN YOUR EYES AND SEE

"…The EU is beginning to move in the right direction: to give a European perspective to a European challenge such as migration."

Sanchez was correct, but for all the wrong reasons. The "European perspective" that he and fellow EU members should be embracing is that of democracy and freedom, not one that allows the unfettered entry of millions of penniless and unskilled illegal migrants, among whom are radical Islamists whose beliefs are antithetical to European values.

In case Sanchez has not been paying attention, the influx of illegal immigrants from the Middle East and Africa has been taking a serious toll on Europe. According to a recent Heritage Foundation report:

"Over the past four years, 16 percent of Islamist plots in Europe featured asylum seekers or refugees… Radicalization of plotters generally occurred abroad although in the most recent plots, more commonly within Europe itself. Europe's response to migration flows has been inadequate and inadvertently increased the terrorist threat dramatically…"

In the book Europe All Inclusive by former Czech President Václav Klaus, co-authored by the Arabic-speaking economist Jiří Weigl, the authors sum up the role that the Left plays in the migrant crisis:

"Europe, and especially its 'integrated' part, is riddled with hypocrisy, pseudo-humanism and other dubious concepts. The most dangerous of them are the currently fashionable, and ultimately suicidal, ideologies of multiculturalism and humanrightism. Such ideologies push millions of people towards resignation when it comes to concepts like home, motherland, nation and state. These ideologies promote the notion that migration is a human right, and that the right to migrate leads to further rights and entitlements including social welfare hand-outs for migrants… Europe is weakened by the leftist utopia of trying to transform a continent that was once proud of its past into an inefficient solidaristic state, turning its inhabitants from citizens into dependent clients."

As the "largest gateway" for migrants now entering Europe, Spain has a particularly great responsibility to wake up to and deal with reality.